The Obama for America Campaign, the DNC and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in July to strike down a law that gives military members more voting flexibility in Ohio. The law allows military members an extra three days to vote.
Most likely, voting activists will not be up in arms over "Military Voter Disenfranchisement," comparing the Obama Campaign request to Jim Crow laws or Poll Taxes...just a hunch.
Military members oftentimes have erratic schedules and may need the extra time to get to the polls. As a matter of fact, the National Defence Committee has reported that "the Department of Defense's Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote."
Bloomberg reports that military groups have expressed their concern over the lawsuit and have asked to intervene. "Members of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives to keep this nation safe and defend the fundamental constitutional right to vote," the military groups said. Additionally, the groups stated,
"The Obama campaign's and Democratic National Committee's argument that it is arbitrary and unconstitutional to afford special consideration, flexibility, and accommodations to military voters to make it easier for them to vote in person is not only offensive, but flatly wrong as a matter of law."
The federal government and liberal groups oftentimes file suits on behalf of voters who they believe may be disenfranchised based on various factors, but typically due to socioeconomic or minority status. Perhaps, based on their service to America, these liberal groups, including the Obama for America Campaign, can ease up a bit on the military; after all, without them, Americans would be able to vote at all.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 303
Nice attempt at spin, but totally dishonest.
http://www.thedailyreporter.com/newsnow/x1437139236/SOS-Johnson-Clerks-miss-military-overseas-absentee-ballot-deadlines
My bet is that this is not the only instance.
My own father voted from the trenches of France during WWII. If Canada could work this out in the 1940s then the USA should be able to manage it in the 21st century.
Man, that's rich.
The FTA and NAFTA which imposed rules on both countries that affect more than just trade and which only Canada adheres to (see softwood lumber).
The issue of border security in which Canada gets wrongly blamed, repeatedly, for allowing 9/11 terrorists into your country (though none of them came through Canada, and would have to pass through American customs in any event) and Canada ends up having to make all kinds of changes to our border security.
Many American ambassadors come to our country and lecture Canada as though we were not an independent country (see Paul Cellucci and David Wilkins).
American military violations of Canadian sovereignty including modern day drone flights over Canadian airspace and leaving toxic messes at former US bases on our soil.
How about the profound ingratitude America shows for Canada doing things like allowing all air traffic diverted on 9/11 to land at our airports (a huge demand on our resources) and joining in the war on Afghanistan to defend our ally and then being wrongly blamed for the 9/11 terrorists entry into the USA and when we (wisely) chose not to be part of the foolish Iraq adventure American (Republican) politicians thank us by calling us the Soviet Republic of Canuckistan.
There's lots more. Lots, lots more.
R.F.; I think you could have fixed this two days ago
Rory... You're wrong, too.
The suit actually only asks for restoration of the three days to everyone else. It specifically does NOT ask for reduction of days for military OR their families. See my full comment below.
Wow, Rory, you really hate America - sorry about not thanking you enough for that airspace thing on 9/11 - we were A LITTLE UPSET THAT DAY.
And your other remark was just as feckless and shallow. To excuse rudeness by saying "we were A LITTLE UPSET THAT DAY". What about all the days since? What about the fact that instead of thanking a friend who came to your aid on that day of all days the American right wing, in particular, tried to lay blame on Canada and repeatedly lied to try and make that blame stick.
America is a great country with a lot of tremendous accomplishments and importance to the world. America is also widely hated in the world for being a bully, for taking liberties with other countries, for being (in your own words) "the ugly American". And almost all of those reprehensible aspect of America are embodied by the rabid, radical, reactionary right wing.
They are embodied in both wings, and in the middle, too.
Personally, I have been active in politics in a variety of ways since I was 13. My family was very political and I am the youngest of a large brood. It's in the blood.
American politics affect the whole world because of America's position in the world. This is even more true for Canada as we do not share a border with any other country but he USA, and you have ten times our population.
I write forcefully on these matters because it is important, politics affects lives, causes deaths and could lead to our destruction of the Earth's ability to support human civilization. So though I may not have a vote in American elections I do have a stake in the matter.
And, after all, it is clear hat both sides in the USA acknowledge that you guys are doing a piss poor job of running your own country, so maybe you do need to listen to what some foreigners have to say. Get outside your bubble.
I am not a supporter of the American Democratic Party, but in a choice between _________ (insert Republican candidate's name here) and Obama or most other Democrats I would vote Democrat.
I am a leftist, which is to say that I am on the side of the poor and the working class and against the domination of society by the rich. I see communism and capitalism both as failed ideologies and as two sides of the same coin.
Which is why I find conservative Americans' accusations of communism against Obama and other Democrats as laughable. There is no left in American politics. There is the extreme loony right wing (Tea Party), the hard right (the rest of the Republican Party) and the centre right (the Democrats).
American disinterest in events (including the politics) outside their own borders is not an attractive quality. World interest in American politics is a necessity. A global view of the world is increasingly important.
...you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. Could you re-read that and try to explain it?
"There is the extreme loony right wing (Tea Party), the hard right (the rest of the Republican Party) and the centre right (the Democrats)."
...if you are calling the American democrats "center right", you are simply wrong (and I'm being extremely kind). There is just NO WAY that the democrats are even looking in the direction of right. It's pretty scary to even think about our friends to the north having a party that could be more left than the democrat party in America is.
Rory, you just keep in mind, and remember that I said this, "If American Capitalism goes down to socialism/communism, the whole world goes down with us." You just think about that.
maree b. given a chance to vote between JFK and McCain, I think I would have taken JFK in the last election.
Rory, I do not even want to know what scale you are using to measure the lesser of two evils. Most people in this country vote for Obama or the democrats because they personally benefit from the democrat ideology and to hell with the rest of us. Very short term and selfish way of thinking. Where republicans look out for themselves more than they should, the conservative wing is looking at the next 250 years and how our grand kids will fend. I would rather pay down the debt that my parents created rather than ask my kids to pay it down for me. Rory, you are not American and must be getting some kickback for your undying devotion to the liberal cause. Or is it that you earn your living off the Canadian government and think that we all should be employed by our respective government…?
If you are honest about your reasons for voting Republican then you must be even dumber than you sound. The tax cuts Republicans would give their right testicle for will ruin the lives or your grandchildren.
Our Federal Government waists about $.70 of every dollar it taxes and then attempts to serve the people. State and local governments are far more efficient. Don't you think that efficient government is better than in efficient. If you leave tax dollars in the hands of those who earn it, then they (the private sector) will create jobs. The federal government can only hire people to work for the government, inherently making the government less efficient (see the law of diminishing return). How much more inefficient can it get.
“amongst the many things that you know nothing about, high on the list are the reasons any of your fellow Americans have for voting for Obama or any other Democrat.”
Like what “Obama phones” or “Obama bucks”, what next “Obama care”, “Obama houses” or “Obama college”, whooops too late.
Those are amongst the reasons that our country is floundering. Get the government of the backs of job creators and they will, create jobs.
Rory, what do you do for a living? Do you have a job? Do you earn your own way?
The theory of tax cuts creating jobs has been thoroughly disproven over the past several decades. Tax cuts shift money from everyone else to the rich, that is their net effect.
Taxes are the price of civilization and, just as with everything else, you get what you pay for. That is why America has been in a steep decline for so long: you are under taxed.
The most prosperous era in American history saw especially wealthy Americans paying much higher taxes.
“Always have.” what!
What do you do?
“The theory of tax cuts creating jobs has been thoroughly disproven over the past several decades.”
Wrong, I have never been employed by a poor person and if you increase taxes on the rich, it is in effect a tax increase on the poor too, if they keep their jobs.
“Tax cuts shift money from everyone else to the rich, that is their net effect.”
Ya, and the rich want to grow the size of the pie, by employing others. Yes they may grow in wealth, but so does every employee. With every job that is created society is enriched. You assume that if one person earns a buck, it is stealing from someone else. Really! What have you stolen to earn the roof over your head and the food you eat? I and many others would argue that you have stolen nothing, you earned it.
Simple logic: Poverty is devoid of money. Poverty is not created, simply because wealth is earned. Poverty exists because the poor do not earn. If the poor engaged in capitalism, they would earn and their wealth will not diminish mine. I have no claim on the dollar whose opportunity was afforded to me, and that which I chose to not earn.
If the poor all stopped being dependent on the government and government shut down all of its programs used to help the poor, the net benefit to society would be immeasurable. Think of all the government workers in addition to the unemployed, who could be free to research alternative fuels or a cure for cancer. Think of all that human potential, we currently waist, by creating a culture of dependence. Generations of people who live on welfare because they can, not because they have to.
It is called Communism that is used to take wealth from those who earn it, in order to distribute that wealth to those who do not.
“Taxes are the price of civilization and, just as with everything else; you get what you pay for. That is why America has been in a steep decline for so long: you are under taxed.”
This is a true statement, but I think we disagree on its implementation. About 50% of Americans are taxed and the other 50% receive direct benefits. The decline you speak of is because the balance is shifting such that fewer people are making money and more are taking it. Roughly 10% of the top wage earners pay about 80% of the tax burden. The rich pay my fare share for me and I thank them. Those who get well more than they pay for should pay for part if not all of what they get. If they pay nothing, then they have no skin in the game and they have no motivation to stand on their own. Nor do they have any motivation to hold their elected officials feet to the fire and make them accountable for efficient use of the tax dollars that are not used to create wealth and jobs. The government has no need currently to be efficient because the other guy is paying the bill.
“The most prosperous era in American history saw especially wealthy Americans paying much higher taxes.” When was that? After Ronald Reagan cut taxes, Bill Clinton and Congress cut regulations in order to create about 20 years of economic growth? If so then you make my point!
Get the government of the backs of job creators and they will, create jobs.
Just look at American economic history. Since 1932, growth under Democrats growth has averaged 4.8 per cent annually, while growth under Republicans has averaged just 2.7 per cent. No Republican president has achieved four consecutive years of growth above 4% since 1929. Clinton, Kennedy/Johnson and FDR all managed that feat, FDR did it twice.
The great right wing hero Reagan only managed growth above 4% in half of his eight years in office, about the same rate that all Democrat presidents combined averaged but almost double that of his fellow Republicans. Compare that record to Clinton 5of 8 years with growth over 4%, while turning massive deficits into surpluses. Reagan tripled the deficit.
The theory you adhere to is simplistic and wrong.
It was the post war period from about 1946 to 1970.
What business is it of yours, Clark? I earn my living through legal work. Do you?
I came up with some different numbers than you did. Given the fact that a presidents economic policy does not start to take effect in the market place until about a year after he takes office I assumed a one year lag, I called it the economic range.
Using: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth as my data source for the GDP number I would clearly disagree all the data you sited. I also through in some info on some numbers from the 1921 depression that lasted about 6 months, note the GNP (GNP, not GDP because GDP was not used at that time) growth of 11.7%.
WGH(R)(21 to 23, economic range 22 to 24) GNP 4700 to 5250 +11.7%
CC (R)(23 to 29, economic range 24 to 30) GNP 5250 to 5200 -1%
Kennedy/Johnson and FDR
FDR (33 to 45, economic range 34 to 46)
JFK (D) (61 to 63, economic range 62 to 64) GDP 7.4% to 3.1%, -4.3%
LBJ (D) (63 to 69, economic range 64 to 70) GDP 9.3% to-1.9%, -11.2%
JEC (D) (77 to 81, economic range 78 to 82) GDP 4.7% to 7.6%, + 2.9%
RWR (R) (81 to 89, economic range 82 to 90) GDP -7% to +1%, +8%
GHWB (R) (89 to 93, economic range 90 to 94) GDP 1% to 5%, 4%
WJC (D) (93 to 2001, economic range 94 to 2002) GDP 4% to 1.5%, -2.5%
GWB(R) (01 to 09, economic range 02 to 10) GDP 4% to 4%, 0%
BHO (D)(09 to 2012, economic range 10 to Present) GDP 3.9% to 3.8% -.1%
GDP Begin% to End%, Delta%
Based on the GDP numbers only, Republicans created +23.7% growth and Democrats created -15.12%, almost 40% spread…
Just look at the 12% for the 12 years Republican presidents after Carter and compare that to the presidencies of Carter, Clinton and/or Obama. You have nothing to stand on.
In fact the 12 years of 12% from RWR and GHWB, is about the same as what was accomplished in 2 years by WGH, now that is something to talk about. See, “The U.S. Economy in the 1920s” http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Smiley.1920s.final on why growth was so good after the depression.
In conclusion, as a general rule, Democrats kill growth and Republicans unleash it.
What would happen, if me and my friends stopped working and only grew the food we need and bartered for everything else. Your system would fall apart and you would be very hungry.
Why have you not justified your 4% growth lie yet?
Rory, there is no special interpretation needed...By favor of the voter, I am referring to allowing the vote to not be hindered, slowed, confused, or taken away. My statement was pretty simple, and needs no clarification or expansion. People speak against a voter ID, which would ensure a more honest election process. People speak against allowing the military to be given a little more time, as many of them are on the other side of the world on behalf of those who will not extend them that consideration. Why are people just opposed to taking steps to ensure a legitimate, accurate election that is based on insisting that fraud and manipulation be eliminated? The opposition to the suggestions to ensure an honest election is simply confusing to those who are in support of the same. If the changes are opposed because they would work in favor of one candidate, that is even more reason to justify the changes...
Vic, you are being dreamy again. ;-) All great points.
Who were the "Radical Republicans"?
And this is known and counted upon by Republicans. They would rather see millions of Democrat and Independent voters disenfranchised if it means they win, than to lose a fair election.
Absolutely and they don't mind using our troops in their quest to suppress the votes of other Americans. I would love to ask you where you get this, but you won't respond.
I can easily say the same to you.
Under the Representation of the People Act 2000 in the UK any military person wishing to vote must do one of two things. First he or she can put their names down on the electoral roll through the Services, or if they wish they can put themselves down as civilians. I have found that not many serving soldiers actually know the rules so are not registered to vote they then miss out on voting in a new Government who will in all honesty and I am not going to make any bones about it, be the ones sending them sometimes to their death.
But that's not the end of the matter, even the ones that are able to vote will miss out on voting as Under electoral law, the closing date for parliamentary candidates to put their names forward to fight a constituency is only 11 days before polling day, postal ballot forms (with names of all the candidates) have to be printed, a process which normally takes up to three days. They then have to be sent out to all forward operational bases such as in Afghanistan given to the soldiers who sometimes will be out in the field on operations for up to three days and then they have to be sent back to Britain in time to be counted.
I cant remember voting when I was away from the UK on active service not because I did not want to it was because of all the restrictions put in my way by not just one Government but by any Government. Even when I was stationed in Germany for a short while I did not get the post on time so that I could vote.
So I share the U.S military frustration and I would say to the usual malcontents on this article!!! You try being at a forward operation base somewhere in Afghanistan trying to vote and until you have experienced that frustration keep you big gobs shut.
So I share the U.S military frustration and I would say to the usual malcontents on this article!!! You try being at a forward operation base somewhere in Afghanistan trying to vote and until you have experienced that frustration keep you big gobs shut. Thanks, Graham - how frustrating!
O it's connie this, and connie that, an' "connie , go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister connie ," when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister connie ," when the band begins to play.
Obama's campaign and Democrats filed the lawsuit last month against Ohio's top elections official in a dispute over the battleground state's law that restricts early, in-person voting during the final three days before Election Day.
The campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party contend the law unfairly ends in-person voting for most Ohioans three days earlier than it does for military and overseas voters.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request of this Court the following equitable relief:…
B. A preliminary and permanent order prohibiting the Defendants, their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from implementing or enforcing lines 863 and 864 of Sec. 3509.03 (I) in HB 224, and/or the SB 295 enactment of Ohio Revised Code § 3509.03 with the HB 224 amendments, thereby restoring in-person early voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all eligible Ohio voters;
So no, they aren’t trying to block military members from getting to the polls, but arguing that since the polls will be open anyway, everyone else should have access to them as well.
Meanwhile, the military is all "up in arms" because the press is generally too goddam lazy to get it straight, and led them to believe they were being disenfranchised. And YOU, Renee, did EXACTLY what the folks you call the "lamestream meadia" did... You skipped looking at the complaint and just quoted the (erroneous) news. Too bad... you actually had a much better story in the truth!
The law originally let every body vote 'til Monday. Most of the people who took advantage of that early voting opportunity were... taking a beat here -- waiting for people to catch up... See? You've got it -- the poor and minorities, i.e., people likely to vote Democratic. So the Ohio REPUBLICANS changed the law to cut out all BUT the military. The Obama folks are suing to let them back in,.
Who knows what kind of lunacy is seen by someone who imagines communists running the most right wing, capitalist nation in the world.
With the changes, most Ohioans now have until the Friday evening before the Tuesday election to cast a ballot in person. But military voters can continue to vote in person until Monday.
Democrats contend the legislative changes to the in-person, early-voting deadlines resulted in "arbitrary and inequitable" treatment of similarly situated voters.
The real question is, how is allowing military to vote until Monday, "inequitable", considering their special circumstances?
No it's not! And you should stop that.
The real questions are, "Why did the Republicans change the law so that non-military persons with voting difficulties were not allowed to use OPEN FACILITIES to cast early votes? What harm did they cure thereby? What harm did they CAUSE thereby?"
Question list No. 2: "Why did no one in the media, and why did you not, bother to look at the actual complaint? Why were the active and retired military personnel and their families allowed to continue to believe that the President was trying to disenfranchise them?"
Obama frags military voters
Ohio ‘concerned with the premise’ of Obama campaign military voting suit
Military Groups Oppose Obama Campaign Ohio Early Voter Suit
OH: Military groups seek to join Obama v. Husted voting lawsuit
Controversy continues over Ohio's early voting laws
As to your complaint that I act like you made it up... I disagree -- I act like EVERY REPORT I could find that was or purported to be "news" got it wrong... including yours (as a result of trusting them). As a Skywriter myself I understand the process. However, I have to say that not going out and finding the actual complaint is just a good way to shoot oneself in the foot. You canNOT trust any reporter to do it right. YOU HAVE TO verify.
The other problem with your post is that you tend to rely a bit too much (OK, a LOT too much) on sources like the National Defense Committee, which usually leads with the best anti-Obama spin they can on EVERYTHING. Actually, I doubt they have the resources for actual reporting. They tend to just run with stuff without any "reportage" at all. Bloomberg's OK... I use it as my Conservative check against the Washington Post and such. You need to do the reverse.
Dems want students to be able to use student IDs to vote. Of course they do. Then even more foreigners can vote.
Use student ID for voting? I dunno about that. Been a long time since I was in college, so I don't know what information is on those. In any case, 'foreigner votes' aren't a real problem, and I doubt using student IDs will make them one.
This is just typical diversion when you folks get called on so0mething, as Renee did here. A shame, Chuck, that you cannot recognize that I am really trying to get to the truth here, by considering your arguments, instead you get all "gloaty" -Can we be adults, please?
...like
"In any case, 'foreigner votes' aren't a real problem, and I doubt using student IDs will make them one." ...yeah, everyone believes that now, just because you said it.
And you are absolutely right, Steven...Critical thinking is not part of the process, or there would be no fight to allow the components that make an election controllable to remain in place.
With a Commander In Chief with that type of disrespect and concern for a military that is scattered all over the globe, and is unwilling to take in consideration why they are scattered all over the globe explains why he would want to hinder their ability to vote. That Commander In Chief knows in what direction those votes will go. This is a disgrace to our brave men and women who serve in our military.